Talk:Image real-time scaling

Creation and Notability

I have added some sources at the bottom of the article that I believe show that this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for stand-alone lists. I would appreciate any clarification or help with formatting on this specific issue.

At any rate, I believe this article as well as this related article deserve to stay up as standalone pages due to the lack of online centralized resources providing this specific information, where Wikipedia is perfect for filling in that gap. Svetroid (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is Crysis Remastered? --80.108.14.198 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Numerous games are missing from the DLSS list. Nvidia maintains a list: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-rtx-games-engines-apps/ And their blog has announcements and roundups that could be used as additional citation: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/tags/?tag=nvidia-dlss You could likely also find things like Steam patch notes, UI screenshots, and other resources for further citation if required.

DLSS 2.1

I'm not sure what is used to decide which game gets DLSS 2.0 and which is getting DLSS 2.1 shown as supported version here.

From technical POV all games in which DLSS support was released after circa Oct 2020 are using DLSS 2.1 SDK.

DLSS 2.1 features are an extension on 2.0 but they are not required to be implemented. So a game may use DLSS 2.1 SDK but opt to not include 2.1 features. 2.1 features are: Ultra Performance preset (upscaling from 11% of target resolution), VR support, concurrency support on Ampere GPUs (capability to run DLSS tensor workload concurrently with shader and RT workloads).

Most games using 2.1 SDK seem to at least use the new Ultra Performance mode. Thus I'm not sure that it's correct to indicate that they are using 2.0.

Games in question here are: Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, Call of Duty: Warzone, Control (has UP preset now), Crysis Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077, Death Stranding, Ghostrunner, Nioh 2, No Man’s Sky, Outriders, The Medium and possibly others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr rus (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue. I think a viable solution is to simply list the major version number (1.0, 2.0, etc.) and put a footnote on the version number based on what sufficiently important SDK features that game supports. Existing footnotes can also remain in place in cases like Control where the game launched with an early version of a particular major-version SDK, if that information is deemed important. I will go ahead with the aforementioned changes, but let me know if you have a better solution or take issue with that and we can figure something else out! Svetroid (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we add the DLSS version number back into the table, we are currently at version 2.3, and with the vast difference between 1.0 and 2.0 and greater, it would be more beneficial to the end user. Also some games have been updated from 1.0 to 2 ie control, shadow of the tomb raider, and metro exodus. Psychosikh (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2021(UTC)

Page Movement Proposal

I think it would be appropriate to move this page to "List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling". Reasons include:

• FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) has been released and is a direct competitor to DLSS, and it would be nice to include both on a single page rather than having two pages for them.
• More competitors may crop up at some point, and it serves no purpose for them all to have their own page.
• It would be easier to maintain the information on a single page.
• It would become easier for regular people to see which games support which technologies.
• The page would become brand-agnostic, which I think is always a good thing for Wikipedia pages.

Doing this would mean several changes, including:

• Eliminating the RT support column. (Maybe not necessary?)
• Eliminating or changing the column for what date DLSS was added, and instead just having a column for release date of the game itself. This may be a controversial change but the object would be to avoid having 3 or more date columns, so other solutions that preserve this information without the table becoming unwieldy are greatly appreciated.

I have contacted the creator of the FSR game list support page to ensure they would be okay with this first, but I don't foresee this being a major issue. Svetroid (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a few things we have to confirm about this:

• Whether or not FSR is a direct competitor with DLSS since one of them is an AI-based Image upscaling while the other is not, and
• Whether or not AMD is going to use number versioning for future FSR upgrades.

Both of them are crucial to know since It will cause a misinformation to readers about this. Kevinguava (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious that they are direct competitors because, despite working very differently, they accomplish the exact same goal: Take a frame from a game of a particular resolution and upsample it to an image that is a higher resolution. I don't think that the way they work changes that. Svetroid (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, they explicitly label FSR as "FSR 1.0" in some of the games it is implemented in, as well as on GPUOpen itself. This implies that there will indeed be a versioning system. Svetroid (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the FSR page agreed to move/redirect the page, and thought it made sense as well. I have made the above changes (except for the whole date added thing, still thinking on that. That will have to be changed somehow once a game on the list supports both DLSS and FSR). Svetroid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

FSR Version

Put it in caution that AMD did not specifically mention any number versioning in their marketing. I would suggest to add it later when they announce a newer version. Kevinguava (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it suffice to simply put a footnote about it, rather than removing the "1.0" altogether? It's right on their GPUOpen page. I understand they didn't use it in their marketing, but how do you resolve the fact that they do version it on GPUOpen? I think it's more confusing to not have the version number there, personally. Svetroid (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's often used to tell third-party developers that there will be no breaking change for future revisions, while there's an architectural difference between DLSS 1.0 and 2.0, hence explicitly mention it in their marketing. Also, looking at their docs, they didn't update their spec that much and often stopped at either v1.1 or v1.2, hence why I would suggest to add it later on when AMD announce FSR 2.0, for example. Kevinguava (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will make the edits. If that is the case, it may also be worthwhile to change all instances of DLSS 2.1/2.2 to 2.0 and instead place a note explaining that they use an updated SDK, as mentioned in another section above, since Nvidia has only officially referenced DLSS as 1.0 and 2.0 on their website. They did reference it as "DLSS 2.1" in a Reddit AMA but I'll just leave the minor versions as a footnote. Svetroid (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Technology Column Issue

On the technology column, what if a game supports both DLSS and FSR? Badhunter0303 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That column is actually 2 columns wide, if you look at the source, and all of the items in it are defined to be 2 columns wide right now, since each game only supports one or the other. I am currently thinking about what to do about the "Technology added" date column though, since that could be problematic for games that add FSR and DLSS on different dates. Svetroid (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We can update it to use checklist and number version column, or create a separate table for games that support both of them. Kevinguava (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added an example on "Necromunda: Hired Gun" in the first table, so you can see what it looks like. Ideally, the two cells would have equal width, but I don't know how to do that or if that would be problematic. If another solution would look nicer, by all means, suggest it. Svetroid (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've made some initial changes to make an equal width for the technology column. It uses fixed column width to make it equal, however. Further changes might be needed, but It works for now. Kevinguava (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to add it here for now, so that I can keep the page consistent, and it can be changed when it's actually out.

List of games with high-fidelity image upsampling support

Game	Technology			Release date	Technology added
Necromunda: Hired Gun	Version 1.0	Version 2.0		1 June 2021

If you have a solution regarding the "Technology added" date issue for titles with both DLSS and FSR, please edit the table or post a new version for consideration. -- Svetroid (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What color should we use for games that support both DLSS and FSR? Should say say both or should we use the method Svetroid suggested? There are 2 games adding fsr support within the next 24 hours so I wil fix it to the format Svetroid put above until we decide. 7Prefix7 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh also what colors should we use for Epic's TAUU upscaling Grey? 7Prefix7 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think for now, Epic's TAUU should not be listed because it is a bit more generic of an algorithm and I don't believe it is Epic-exclusive, Epic just has their own implementation. For now, I think XeSS, FSR, and DLSS are sufficient to list.

Regarding colors...

FSR: #DD0031

DLSS: #76B900

XeSS: #0068B5

And here's an example of what that might look like.

List of games with high-fidelity image upsampling support

Game	Technology			Release date	Technology added
Generic Game	Version 1.0	Version 2.0	Version 1.0	20 September 2021

Svetroid (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have updated both of the tables above to account for what I think is the best option for the tables to include XeSS. The total column width of the Technology column is 120pt. If you only have one technology, then colspan is 3. If you have two technologies, you set the first one to have colspan of 1 and the second to have a colspan of 2, then you set their widths to 60pt each. If you have 3 technologies, you just set their widths to 40pt each. If you need to see the markup for all of this, just edit this section. Svetroid (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ray Tracing Support

I think we should add the ray tracing table back in because up scaling technologies are more important in games with Ray Tracing as Ray tracing has a linear scaling on peformance (4k is 4x impact of 1080p for being 4x the pixels) 7Prefix7 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that these technologies are often used in conjunction with ray tracing due to ray tracing's high performance cost. However, I do believe that ray tracing is simply out of scope for this article, and I'm the one who originally put the RT column there in the first place. This page already contains that information; why duplicate it? Svetroid (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

FSR list linked to from Reddit's /r/Amd

The article List of games with FSR support (currently redirected here and subject to a deletion discussion) was shared on Reddit by the article creator 7Prefix7 with the title "I have created the "List of Games with FSR support" wikipedia page." This happened about 9 hours ago. Please evaluate the discussions above and editing activity with this in mind. --Veikk0.ma 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if I understand; I redirected that page with their permission. Hopefully all is okay? Svetroid (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I did not intend to do any harm and did not know that you could not redirect pages with ongoing deletion discussions (although I suppose this should have been obvious to me in hindsight). I apologize for that.

@Chess: per your comment on the deletion discussion, I will begin the process of adding inline citations for every item in each of the tables. I should hope I do not have to reassert the notability criteria, but will defend that if needed.

@Veikk0.ma: I have also taken into consideration your comment on the deletion discussion regarding the possible proliferation of the FSR algorithm. At such a time when that may happen, I would be happy to revisit the notability and usefulness of this page.

-- Svetroid (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Iron Conflict

I am able to independently confirm that Iron Conflict does have DLSS in-game, but I cannot find a reliable source for it. Any help finding a source would be greatly appreciated. Svetroid (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I got in contact with a member of the team at Iron Conflict and they updated one of the Steam news posts for me so that I could use it as a source. Hopefully that suffices! Svetroid (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

DLSS/FSR Preset tables

I do not think these tables belong on this article. They would be better suited to go on the DLSS and GPUOpen articles, respectively. There also may be an argument that FSR deserves its own page entirely (TressFX has its own page here), but I will leave that up to others to decide. I think we should move those tables to more relevant pages, and once that happens, remove them from this page. Svetroid (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the DLSS Preset table is missing the "Ultra Performance" preset added in DLSS 2.1. Svetroid (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the DLSS/FSR preset tables to more relevant articles, which are linked to on the article. In doing so, I updated the GPUOpen page with much more accurate information, so any additional FSR information should go on the GPUOpen page. Svetroid (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Monster Hunter: World does not support FSR

The game only supports FidelityFX CAS, which isn't the same technology. 24.41.236.137 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Crysis Remastered Trilogy & Metro Exodus Enhanced edition

The Crysis Remastered Trilogy should not be separated as they are sold as a trilogy set and I don't like the idea of putting these types of bundled remasters in a set just like if Halo MCC added FSR we wouldn't put Halo CE, H2, H2A, H3, H4, & Reach as a separate game.

And for Metro Enhanced edition and Metro I think the same thing as well.

Alternatively could just in the title put both Metro games in the title. And put all 3 Crysis games in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Prefix7 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Seperate dates for DLSS and FSR addition

I think we should change the "Date Added" column to be able to account for the date of FSR, DLSS, and XeSS additions, possibly even updates to said tech (like DLSS 1.0 > DLSS 2.0+). Perhaps have the have column take two or three rows for each tech addition date, or make extra columns separate for each tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mine181 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge to Image scaling

Per this discussion, there is a motion to merge this article into Image scaling and remove the table on the basis of WP:NOTDIR as an alternative to deletion. A number of "Lists of games with X feature support" were recently deleted so this list doesn't look like it would stand up to AFD scrutiny. I've already sketched out a short section at Image scaling#Real-time scaling, but feel free to expand on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is only sufficient to delete this list if all other lists on Wikipedia are deleted as well. This page has notability and usefulness to people, and it doesn't really make sense to delete it (because that is what you are attempting to do under the veiled "merge") when it is a useful resource not provided anywhere else. Either Wikipedia is consistent, or it is not. Lists are allowed, or they aren't. Thank you. Svetroid (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much all of these list articles have been deleted with little resistance, so we may as well operate on the premise that this one will do. It's really no different from the others. He's just cutting to the chase really. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• I support this. The stand-alone list is unlikely to survive, but it's good to have some core examples to illustrate the point at the main article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 did you just make the post then agree to your own message then delete it? 7Prefix7 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. My comments are responding to different people. I didn't delete anything though, so not sure what you mean there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is this deleted, ludicrous CDLLBOSS (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This decision is really a bad idea. This page provided something that is nowhere to be found in a concise way on the whole internet. It was extremely useful , but is now redirected to a page that has nothing to do with. what about : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directors_who_appear_in_their_own_films ? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis ? There are many pages makings list of thing. This one definetely had its use.Sorcierombre (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Garbage decision User:Sergecross73 Badhunter0303 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you singling me out? It wasn't my proposal and I wasn't the one who carried it out. I merely pointed out that these sort of articles aren't surviving deletions discussions carried out recently, which is factually true. Many similar articles have been deleted lately. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because you made a post suggesting to delete the article then make a post agreeing with yourself then deleting it. There was no reason to delete this list other than to go on a power trip and its laughable that you post posts saying you agree with yourself forgetting to logoff. 7Prefix7 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)